Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

. . . the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more
guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra,
especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that
mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require
showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death
and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have
achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).
But those correlations are not observed when a large number of
nations are compared across the world.

JOHN R. LOTT Jr.State University of New York - Department of EconomicsFLORENZ PLASSMANN State University of New York - Department of EconomicsJOHN E. WHITLEY University of Adelaide - School of Economics December 9, 2002

Abstract: Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year. Ayres and Donohue have simply misread their own results. Their own most generalized specification that breaks down the impact of the law on a year-by-year basis shows large crime reducing benefits. Virtually none of their claims that their county level hybrid model implies initial significant increases in crime are correct. Overall, the vast majority of their estimates based on data up to 1997 actually demonstrate that right-to-carry laws produce substantial crime reducing benefits. We show that their models also do an extremely poor job of predicting the changes in crime rates after 1997.

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

Local politicians say they know the source of the problem: the lack of gun control. Gov. Rendell recently complained the state legislature "has been in the control of the NRA." Street blames the increasing murder rate on "the dangerous proliferation of guns on our city streets." Last Tuesday, two City Council members announced the novel legal tactic of suing the state government to let Philadelphia pass its own gun laws.
The desire "to do something" is understandable, but new gun laws aren't the answer.
In the five years from 2001 to 2006, Philadelphia's murder rate soared more than 36 percent while nationally, the murder rate increased only 2 percent. Indeed, only two other cities in the top 40 experienced a sharper rise in murder rates, according to FBI crime statistics.
But if the cause of more murders in Philadelphia is the lack of yet more gun control, why isn't murder increasing in the rest of Pennsylvania? Pittsburgh saw just a 7 percent increase.
Why haven't murder rates gone up in the rest of the country? Should Phoenix, the city closest in size to Philadelphia, claim that its murder rate remained virtually unchanged for the last five years because of the supposed lack of new gun control? How should Dallas explain its 24 percent drop in murder?
It is not that guns are more likely to be used in Philadelphia murders, either. The proportion of murders involving guns is similar to that of other cities.
It would appear that Philadelphia's problems have something to do with Philadelphia, not the lack of more gun control